What's wrong with imdb ratings ?

Am I the only one who thinks imdb ratings for certain movies are highly suspicious ?

I mean 8 out of 10 for the hangover ? what the ? mass dementia ?
I'm not trying to be funny. I just didn't laugh once troughout the whole movie and thought I was being generous by rating it 3 out of 10. And there are a lot of other movies of which I suspect some kind of rating scam (this yawn of a movie called In Bruges is in the top 250 !).

I thought both those movies were great. I don't think one person can say "this movie is funny" or "this movie is not funny". Surely you know that The Hangover was a massive hit and that lots of people really enjoyed it. You can't just say that they're ALL wrong. We all have movies we think stink that everyone else loves - I can't stand the Lord of the Rings movies. But just because I don't like them doesn't mean I can say they suck.

I thought both those movies were great. I don't think one person can say "this movie is funny" or "this movie is not funny". Surely you know that The Hangover was a massive hit and that lots of people really enjoyed it. You can't just say that they're ALL wrong. We all have movies we think stink that everyone else loves - I can't stand the Lord of the Rings movies. But just because I don't like them doesn't mean I can say they suck.

ok. I see your point. Anyone has got to give LOTR some credit just because of the epicness of how it was made. Even if you don't like fantasy, it's undeniably well made in its genre. The same way I expect jokes when I watch a comedy and I give a few credit points even if it's not my style.
I'm definitely not going to argue taste. It's probably stupid to expect objectivity from a system used by the masses anyway.

Also give it some time (but not always i.e. see: The Dark Knight [over-hyped] as an exception to the rule). imdb voters tend to vote new movies higher when they are out at the theater (probably because positive associations going to the movies (i.e.hot date or positive family get-together, commitment and consistency (i.e. forking out 9 buck and thinking a movie sucked makes some people feel like chumps so they "convince themselves" they like the movie better than they do), as well as Internet fanboy/fangirls who flock to a name brand/genre they love especially if the previous movie totally sucked (The Dark Knight, which I find decent but totally overrated)

So imdb is not perfect, but often it is a helpful "word on the street" database to offset some of the crap the movie critics dish out. Thus I prefer to look on it as one of many tools for research and modify accordingly.

I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

Originally Posted by Edgar

Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

How could I forget ... the Dark Knight ... to further illustrate my point ! It's unbelievable that that was made by the same director of Memento, Batman Begins (which I thought was really a good fresh start) & The Prestige!
Luckily rates do lower after a while like you said. But right now it's top 10 of all time. Am I the only one voting against an army of kids crawling out of their dipers ? + ranting & some more whining

I agree with you, recently I've found IMDB ratings to be inaccurate. I can't think of the examples, but some of the ratings have been off. They gave great movies subpar ratings, and they gave subpar movies great ratings. I guess rottentomatoes might be a little better.

It's probably stupid to expect objectivity from a system used by the masses anyway.

Originally Posted by TheChosenOne

I agree with you, recently I've found IMDB ratings to be inaccurate. I can't think of the examples, but some of the ratings have been off. They gave great movies subpar ratings, and they gave subpar movies great ratings. I guess rottentomatoes might be a little better.

The problem with railing against the masses is that nobody thinks they are a part of the masses, but we all are. The reason why IMDB ratings are valuable is because they distill a lot of people's opinions. So saying that "They gave great movies subpar ratings" is asserting that you stand apart from the masses and that you are wiser than the collective wisdom.

That said, I can't believe how well they rate a piece of garbage like "Fight Club"

On Rotten Tomatoes you find a lot of low budget sleeper movies done by a famous directors/actors as being very highly rated, mostly because fans of said directors/actors seek out these films and think they are amazing and give them good reivews, whist most people will never buy or see these movies. To prove my point, look up movies by the Coen Brothers. I feel by far one of there best movies is The Big Lebowski, and it has probalby one of the biggest followings, but out of all their movies it's rating is like.. sixth out of all Coen brother movies, most of which I've never even heard of.

...Then I ducked my head and the lights went out, and two guns blazed in the dark;
And a woman screamed, and the lights went up, and two men lay stiff and stark...

Aren't IMDB ratings based on more then just the member votes? I'm not sure but I believe box office grossing and time of the vote (IE, was it a vote shortly after the movie came out) have a count as well.

I usually only pay attention to ratings if they're extremely high or low. Most movies aren't terribly good, anyway, so I don't have tremendous expectations. I usually just want to be entertained and not annoyed.

What bugs me the most is when it's obvious that there's no real script or plot or jokes, but the producers are just counting on the fact that everyone likes these actors/actresses. And sure enough, people eat it up. First Wives Club was like that. It was just "You go, girl!" in movie form.